Talk:Ibn Abbas/Archive 1

Discussion
Could someone add that Ibn Abbas was pro-Mut'ah?

And also that he was an expert in Quran comentaries that was often consulted by Umar, and was admited to be wiser than the later... --Striver 16:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article WAS not nuetral. Abdullah ibn abbas is respected by sunnis and shias. Saying he thought Omar and abu bakr were liars is being biased and being shia centric. and hence has to be removed. - Younus.hk at 04:24, 2005 September 6


 * Biased? Says who? Shahih Muslim includes it as authentic, so in no way is that shia centric. I know Sunnis like Ibn Abbas, everyone does. But that doesent change his oppinions, that have been authenticated by both Shia and Sunnis --Striver 21:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * sahih muslim? where? could you please give reference??? - 210.214.110.17 (Talk) at 23:17, 2005 September 18


 * here --Striver 23:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ibn Abbas believing that? non sense. He was a rafida and belived both Umar and Abu bakr to be treacherous liars and sinners. Further, Google does not give any hits on a quote that would be on ALL wahabi sites, if it existed. --Striver 15:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

we need a non-muslims point of view to be expressed
I am disputing the neutrality of this article as it needs to be re-written from a non-muslims point of view. No shia centricism or sunni centricism please! This is also no place to interpret each others religios texts. Please remove all disputable content. Or atleast have both the groups say their part. instead of removing the others' views.

Be sensible.

-Anon


 * Salam brother/sister in Islam!


 * Im working on a exentsive answer to you. And will also present a ref to this, inshallah.
 * --Striver 23:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok Mr. go ahead. But whatever u get, please have it nuetral and not one sided. This is wikipedia and not wiki"shia". If you have what shias say mention it so (saying its what the shias say) and dont mention it as a fact. Also mention what sunnis have to say. You can be a good editor. And also one thing can u give me a link where we can read shia texts and material. their ahadith etc. thanx. 210.214.110.99 at 09:44, 2005 November 13

cleanup
No reliable sources, poor language, missing wikipedic form. This should be an encyclopedic article, not an hagiography. --tickle me 01:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is incredibly biased
Not only is the article written in emotive religious language, it is deeply Shi'a-POV. Given that Abbas is a respected source for Sunni hadith, and the progenitor of the line of the Abbasids, I can't imagine a Sunni Muslim reading this article with anything but horror.

Not to mention the reaction of those of us who (like me) aren't Muslim. Zora 22:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I read the whole article and even though I did not find things that were being said from the Shi’as POV. But still I made some changes so you will be satisfied. And the article is not only talking about what Shi’as thinks of Ibn Abbas, the article also contains the information about what Sunnis think about Ibn Abbas. This article is also very interesting because at some points Shi’as and Sunnis think alike and at some point Shi’as and Sunnis differ from each other. So this proves that the article is not written from Shi’as POV. Thank You Salman at 11:11, 2006 April 30

COPYRIGHT VIOLATION
This article was listed as a copy vio on the 13th of June. Per WP policy, it must stay up for at least seven days. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE. Thankyou. Dev920 12:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP policy states that you must revert to the last version that is not a copyright violation. I just did that. BhaiSaab talk 19:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just checked up, and that only applies if part of the page was copied. If ALL of the page was copied, "If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page." From WP:COPY. I'll put it back. Thanks for your efforts though. Dev920 19:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dev920, that is not copyvio, its a biography of the same person, what did you expect, to find a totaly different naration ? --Striver 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's close enough to count. But I can't be bothered to argue about this right now - it's listed at copyright problems, so someone will check it at some point, and we'll see. Dev920 20:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then fix the problem, tell what part needs to be re-writen, dont waste all of our time with unconstuctive reverts! --Striver 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody revert this unconstuctive user so we can get over this? I have reverted him twice, somebody else reverting him twice will end this. --Striver 22:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The entire article must be rewritten, completely, every single word of it. This is not only copyvio, but also hagiogrpahy, and it's unacceptable to maintain such a page on Wikipedia. Pecher Talk 22:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What part is objectionable? Tell so we can start fixing it. --Striver 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The previous revisions contain text from (possibly from other sources). The current version (a stub), however, is certainly not a copyvio. I am therefore not deleting the article. In case of future problems please let me know. Conscious 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Give me the URL of the website from where this article has been copied from word to word. Paraphrasing is not considered as a copyright violation because the person who is paraphrasing is writing the article in his own words after gaining the information from another website. If anyone of you can give us the URL of the website this article has been copied word to word from then we Shi’as don’t have any problem changing the article. After it is proven that this article has violated the copyright rules of Wikipedia then we (Shi'as) are either going to delete the article or we are going to rewrite the article from scratch. Thank You Salman


 * You shouldn't even be parapharasing... you should be taking factual content from existing reliable sources and writing an encyclopedic article in your own words.  a rewrite from scratch, from a neutral point of view, and containing verifiable references is what I would like to see happen here.--Isotope23 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That’s what I Do Isotope23. I take the information from other articles and try my best to write the article from a neutral point of view. An author can not just put in information in his book because no one is going to publish the book unless the author of that book tells the publisher where he got the information from. When I don’t know about anything I don’t just go to one website I go to many website and after absorbing information and knowledge from those websites, then I start to write the article. This article was being deleted because of the reason of copyright violation, right. I wrote this article and I am saying that I paraphrased someone the information from other websites, and there is nothing wrong with that because paraphrasing is the act in which a statement or remark is explained in other words or another way as to clarify the meaning, or when a direct quotation is unavailable (this definition is copied from wikipedia.org just to show editors who believe that paraphrasing is the violation of copyright). Violation of copyright occurs when a published piece of literature is copied from A-Z and the copier states that he wrote the information and does not even give the credit to the original writer and does not even give the source(s). I wrote this article and I am saying that I paraphrased some of the information in this article but no one should say that this article is violating the copyright since paraphrasing is not considered as a violation of copyright. And this article is neutral because it is just not talking from the Shi’a side but it is also stating what Sunni brothers think about Abdullah ibn Abbas (one of the Sahabas of Hazrat Muhammad SAW). Thank You Salman

"Muhammed" rather than "the Prophet Muhammed"
As per the Wikipedia manual of style and policy on Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV, I'm changing all references to "the Prophet Muhammed" to simply "Muhammed", with the exception of the first mention, in which case "the prophet Muhammed" in lower case will be used. Please read this for clarification: Islamic Honorifics. Inter lingua talk 17:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Don’t worry Bro. I changed Prophet Muhammad SAW to just Islamic Prophet Mohammed SAW. I mean just refereeing him as Prophet Mohammed SAW would not be neutral since many non-Muslims do not consider him a prophet. Now they can not say anything about putting prophet before the name of Prophet Mohammed SAW’s name because I attached Islamic before saying prophet Mohammed, now this is not a POV because Prophet Mohammed SAW was an Islamic prophet. Whoever placed those tags earlier, I hope he/she is not going to have any problem with the article as far as the neutrality is concerned. Thank You Salman

Deleting AFD tags...?
Why does the AFD tag keep appearing in and then dissappearing from this article? From the article's entry, I can't see where a consensus to keep or delete has been established....KC9CQJ 23:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does Pecher wants to change the article?
I don’t understand why Pecher is changing the article before even discussing the matter on the talk page. I think everyone should know the reason why the article is being changed. Pecher you should tell us, what is it about the article that you want to change and why you want to make that change. Whenever is make changes in an article is always discuss the changes on the take page of that article so others can know why and where I am changing the article. Pecher you can not just completely delete the article for some reason; you have to talk about the reason with others on the talk page first. Thank You Salman
 * Be that as it may, you still haven't answered MY question as to why someone took it upon themselves to delete the AFD tag from the article before consensus weighed in on the issue. And it looks like it has. Happy editing!  KC9CQJ 23:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate you decision, Thank You very much Salman

Abd-Allah ibn Abbas VS Abdullah ibn Abbas
Now this is kind a crazy in a way because each and every single person in this world should be able to read and pronounce the name Abdullah ibn Abbas, then why do we have to change the spelling of the name (Abd-Allah ibn Abbas). Once again if our brother, Grenavitar, is doing it because he wants to make it easier for the westerners to read, then let me tell him brother I have been living in New York, USA for all of my life and I know that westerners don’t have not problem reading the name Abdullah. And above all we should be showing/teaching/helping the westerners how to read and pronounce the Arabic names and the only way we can do that is by writing the names originally. Thank You Salman
 * I know that bro Salman is doing what he belives is best for wikipedia, but i oppose the move of the name and support that the article should be named "Abd-Allah ibn Abbas". After all, this is a english encyclopedia, and the implication of "the Abd of Allah" is not as clear in "Abdullah" as in "Abd-Allah" in the enlish language, as it would be in the Arabic. --Striver 00:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How about "Abdu-llah ibn Abbas" or "Abd-ullah ibn Abbas"?--Striver 00:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think then Abdu-llah ibn Abbas is better and i am just saying this to help you out striver. I still believe we should state the names of wikipedia the way they real r spelled. By changing around the letters one can also lead others to mispronunciation of the name. Thank You Salman

Now that i have thought about it a while, there are plenty of names that are pronunciated in a totaly different manner than they are spelled. i still support "Abd-Allah", but i do agree with you that we need to state how the name is prounces, so nobody mispronunced them. Just take a look at Zhuge Liang. --Striver 21:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To do

 * Ata ibn Abi Rabah --Striver 01:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Kathir in al-Bidaya Wa al Nihaya" Volume 8 pages 299, 300 praised him as follows:

"Ibn 'Abbas is the most knowledgeable person among the people as to what God has revealed to Muhammad. Umar Ibn al-Khattab used to say that the interpreter of the Qur'an is Ibn 'Abbas. He was accustomed to telling him: 'You have acquired a knowledge which we never received. You are the most expert in the book of God"' --Striver 22:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

was ibn abbas rafida
Rafida? sheesh dude you are something. He was purely from ahl-us-sunnah and not ahl ul bidah. see this

"Have we then finished with this point?" asked Abdullah and their reply was: "Allahumma, naam - O Lord, yes!" Abdullah went on: "As for your statement that Ali fought and did not take prisoners of war as the Prophet did, do you really desire to take your "mother" Aishah as a captive and treat her as fair game in the way that captives are treated? If your answer is "Yes", then you have fallen into kufr (disbelief). And if you say that she is not your "mother", you would also have fallen into a state of kufr for Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, has said: 'The Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves and his wives are their mothers (entitled to respect and consideration).' (The Quran, Surah al-Ahzab, 34:6). source : http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/history/biographies/sahaabah/bio.ABDULLAH_IBN_ABBAS.html

And i guess you dont understand english so well. If you read the complete hadith, It talks about a dispute between Ali and ibn abbas. Ibn abbas calls Ali a "liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest" person. And not Abu bakr and umar. Please for heavens sake dont misquote ibn abbas from sunni texts. Umar according to the sunni commentators mis understood what ibn abbas was talikng about.

Im going to edit what you have written here. 210.214.110.99 (Talk) at 09:44, 2005 November 10

the dispute between ali and ibn abbas and the sunni stance
I took a check at Fath Al Bari of Ibn Hajar and came up with the following.

Firstly, before addressing the core issue, everyone has to be aware that unlike the Shias we do not consider anyone Infallible (ma'sum) save the Prophet[s] - Allah bless them -. Thus, whatever errors may be attributed to Sayyidina Ali or Sayyidina Abu Bakr or Sayyidina Abbas are a result of what arises due to human nature. You will see disagreements and quarrels between Sayyidina Umar and Abu Bakr aswell, even between the Ahly Bayt themselves.

However, there are numerous versions of this narration - some of which state the phrase and others which do not. In the Sahih of Imam Bukhari, this phrase is not mentioned, and in the narration of Sahih Muslim, it is. As the student of hadith knows, the most authentic hadith are those present in both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim (meaning: both of them agreed on a hadith and both mentioned it in there books) and then the Sahih of Bukhari and then the Sahih of Muslim. Since the Sahih Bukhari is more authentic then the Sahih of Muslim, the text of the hadith present in Bukhari is given more weight then that of Sahih Muslim, unless proven otherwise.

There are two parts to the narration:

1. Abbas calling Ali a Liar and treachorous. 2. Umar saying Ali thought of Abu Bakr as a liar.

We shall go over each:

1. In Bukhari the hadith states:

فقال عباس يا أمير المؤمنين اقض بيني وبين هذا وهما يختصمان فيما أفاء الله على رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم من مال بني النضير

without mentioning the phrase "decide (the dispute) between me (Abbas) and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar (Ali)."

Shaikh Al Islam In Hajar stated in his Sharh on Sahih Bukhari i.e. Fath Al Bari that there are variant versions:

زاد شعيب ويونس ‏"‏ فاستب علي وعباس ‏"‏

- Shuayb and Yunus added that Ali and Abbas called each other names.

وفي رواية عقيل عن ابن شهاب في الفرائض ‏"‏ اقض بيني وبين هذا الظالم؛

- In the version of Uqayl from Ibn Shihab (Zuhri) in 'The shares of Inheritance' (it says) 'Decide between me (Abbas) and this unjust one (Ali)'.

وفي رواية جويرية ‏"‏ وبين هذا الكاذب الآثم الغادر الخائن ‏"

- In the version of Juwariyya, 'Between this perfidous, deceitful, wrongdoing liar.'

The above variants, one can be found in the Sahih of Imam Muslim which states that Abbas said to Umar:

- Commander of the Faithful, decide (the dispute) between me and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar.

Therefore, the hadith in Muslim is not only negative to Abu Bakr (or so it seems) but it is certainly negative to the Prophets Family aswell.

The Shias - if they accept the Sahih Muslim version - would have to agree that Sayyidina Abbas - the senior member of Ahly Bayt and the uncle of the Prophet - called Ali a "Liar" and "treacherous".

So then why condemn Ali for thinking this way of Abu Bakr when Abbas thought this way of Ali? Was it because Ali was "actually" a liar that Abbas said this or because of a disagreement and heated emotions? The Shias can answer this for themselves. Continuing with Allahs help:

2. We have already discussed the first part of the narration where Sayyidina Abbas called Sayyidina Ali a liar and so forth. We shall now go onto the second part regarding Sayyidina Umar and Abu Bakr.

Firstly, once again, this version is only mentioned in the Sahih of Imam Muslim, and not in Bukhari. In Bukhari it merely states:

ثم توفى الله نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال أبو بكر أنا ولي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقبضها أبو بكر فعمل فيها بما عمل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والله يعلم إنه فيها لصادق بار راشد تابع للحق ثم توفى الله أبا بكر فكنت أنا ولي أبي بكر فقبضتها سنتين من إمارتي أعمل فيها بما عمل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وما عمل فيها أبو بكر والله يعلم إني فيها لصادق بار راشد تابع للحق

without the use of the phrase "Deceitful, treachorous, liar" but simply enumerating the trustworthiness and truthfulness of Abu Bakr and Umar.

Further, in the Fath Al Bari it states:

"‏ وفي رواية مسلم من الزيادة ‏"‏ فجئتما، تطلب ميراثك من ابن أخيك، ويطلب هذا ميراث امرأته من أبيها، فقال أبو بكر قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم‏:‏ لا نورث ما تركنا صدقة، فرأيتما كاذبا آثما غادرا خائنا ‏"‏ meaning, in the narration of Muslim there was more, and then Ibn Hajar went on to show the narration stating what Umar said Ali and Abbas thought regarding Sayyidina Abu Bakr.

Ibn Hajar follows this by stating:

وكأن الزهري كان يحدث به تارة فيصرح،

meaning, the narrator of the hadith Zuhri would sometimes not mention it and sometimes he would.

وتارة فيكنى وكذلك مالك وقد حذف ذلك في رواية بشر بن عمر عنه عند الإسماعيلي وغيره وهو نظير ما سبق من قول العباس لعلي وهذه الزيادة من رواية عمر عن أبي بكر حذفت من رواية إسحاق الفروي شيخ البخاري وقد ثبت أيضا في رواية بشر بن عمر عنه عند أصحاب السنن والإسماعيلي وعمرو بن مرزوق وسعيد بن داود كلاهما عند الدار قطني عن مالك على ما قال جويرية عن مالك،

meaning, Imam Malik did not mention it in Bishr ibn Umars narration from him, with Al Ismaili and others, which is the same as that of what was mentioned about Abbas and Ali. It was also not mentioned in Ishaq Al Farawis narration, Imam Bukharis Shaikh. It is also established in the narration of Bish ibn Umar by the writers of the Sunans and al Ismaili and Amr ibn Marzuq and Sa'id ibn Dawud, both of them with Daraqtuni from Malik....

Lastly, the issue is mostly regarding rhetoric i.e. concerning Arabic Balagha.

This phrase actually means:

- So you both think he was a liar, treacherous and dishonest?? (Note: he uses the words Sayyidina Abbas used for Sayyidina Ali verbatim to make a point.)

Further proof of this point is, if Sayyidina Ali and Abbas actually considered both Umar and Abu bakr to be liars and deceitful, why would they - with this opinion - go to Sayyidina Umar and ask him to make a decision between them regarding their dispute? Obviously our Shia friends will not be willing to accept this, but then again, reading narrations by means of English translations with limited understanding of the language does lead to false presumptions. However, the same type of rhetoric is also present in the English language.

This reminds of the narration that Shias use to slander Sayyidina Muawiyah that goes:

- The Prophet said of Muawiyah, "May Allah not fill his belly."

Had our Shia brothersbeen even remotely familiar with the Arabic language, they would know that this means "May his sustenance be without end". Actually, in Semitic cultures when someone is presumed to die soon they say so-and-so has reached his fill of food.

Regardless, I strongly advise these people to stop reading English translations and for once actually read the actual Arabic.

And Allah knows best - 210.214.247.49, 2005 November 11

His views on Aisha
This is for all those who claim that ibn abbas was rafida, rafidis hate aisha (may allah be pleased with her) but ibn abbas did not hate her. Infact he taught respect for the mother of the believers. This is how he convinced the khawarij. "Have we then finished with this point?" asked Abdullah and their (the khawarij) reply was: "Allahumma, naam - O Lord, yes!" Abdullah went on: "As for your statement that Ali fought and did not take prisoners of war as the Prophet did, do you really desire to take your "mother" Aishah as a captive and treat her as fair game in the way that captives are treated? If your answer is "Yes", then you have fallen into kufr (disbelief). And if you say that she is not your "mother", you would also have fallen into a state of kufr for Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, has said: 'The Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves and his wives are their mothers (entitled to respect and consideration).' (The Quran, Surah al-Ahzab, 34:6). source : - 210.214.246.188 (Talk) at 11:07, 2005 November 1

What copyright violation is our friend Grenavitar is talking about?
I encourage each and every single wikipedian to go and visit the website our friend Grenavitar posted. He blames me for copying the information from that website about the Sahaba and cousin of Hazrat Mohammed SAW (Abdullah ibn Abbas). The truth is, when I don’t know much about something or someone, before I start writing anything about it I always go to other neutral websites and absorbs information from then and after doing that all I starting writing on wikipedia.org. Grenavitar has blamed me for violating the copyrights of wikipedia and he also blocked me from editing any pages. After taking and explaining this matter to wikipedia representatives, hey allowed me to edit again. Grenavitar blocked me from editing any article and at the same time he was saying things about me that were not true, I had no way of defending myself since I wasn’t able to post my responds. But now I encourage each and every single wikipedian to go and visit that website and decided for themselves what really happened. Thank You Salman, 31 September 2006